User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/April

Antisemitsm in the Labour Party lead
I'm not sure I understand your edit summary when you reverted my removal of the "Lede too short" template. Are you saying this is still an issue? If the antisemitism issue was raised again, with a noticeable demonstration outside parliament, isn't that worth mentioning? Sionk (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am saying the lead already says it is still an ongoing issue, we do not need to say it is an ongoing issue twice Whether worded as "ongoing issue" or "resurfaced issue" (to resurface an issue had to have gone away, not be ongoing).Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Kronos Worldwide
Hello. If you don't see the interest of a company which is a supplier of titanium dioxide (TiO2) ingredients used in the Paint & Coatings industry, i can't do anything for you. Please recreate this article, quickly. Thanks. Sélim0877 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not that I do not see the interest, it is that you did not demonstrate that any one else has.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page
Hello, Slatersteven. Would you please stay off my talk page in future. I'll remove any future messages. Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I ask you to not then make article talk pages about me, that is not what they are for.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Marked For Deletion
(The more I look into this, the more I am finding resources to answer the concerns addressed by this.) Hello. As with the nature of editing, I want to revise an article that had been marked for deletion in order to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I was assuming that upcoming releases for film, books, or any type of media was made accessible to the public on Wikipedia as a way to inform what the item entails. An upcoming established film essentially promotes itself in virtue of its description, but those articles don't necessarily get removed. In my case, I have a book written that's getting published on a certain date. How come I can't inform what the item entails on Wikipedia just as objectively? My contribution wasn't set-in-stone as such to be for advertising. The article was meant to evolve and grow based on what it's already about. For the time being, I wrote that article to inform what the book is already about in general, by informing that it's an endearing work that's open to evolve in such a way as to be more informative, encyclopedic, where others could also make their contributions to it. That's part of what the book is about. I wasn't trying to promote it as a finished product that way. Just let me know what my options are. Kauneongajohn (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well one issue is that Crystal ball means we only have articles on projects under development when major RS have covered them to a degree that indicates they are both already notable and likely to see production complected (publicity and other promotional material does not count, it has to be third party written). Also it is general frowned upon to write articles about yourself (not against the rules, just not best practice), this also goes to the heart of notability.


 * Just because you and your mates care about it does not mean (not wishing to seem rude, but this is how it is) any one else does. What you need is third party wp:rs that have shown an interest. Without that it is going to get deleted, even after publication of the book.


 * Even your post above reads like promotion "it's an endearing work" is not a neutral description, and like a publicity hand out. Again we go back to notability, it does not matter if you consider this endearing, a third party needs to think (and say this). None neutral language like this is the very reason we do not really like editors to create articles about themselves (or their work) it leads to puffery and non neutral language that reads and acts like self promotion, even if that is not the intent. We can very rarely be neutral about ourselves.


 * The only real way forward is to wait until another editor has noticed your work and writes an article about it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No more on my talkpage
Per the rules of Wikipedia, you're now disinvited from commenting on my talkpage. Thanks.

jps (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Harry Holbert Turney-High
Hi, I understand that this author is not very well known. Actually I wasn't able to find his birth and (maybe) death dates on the internet, as well as discussions about him. I became to know him through John Keegan's [|A History of Warfare], where he is quoted several times. Then I found his books academically interesting enough to make this little article about him. Maybe it is not enough to warrant a wikipedia article, I am not sure.Delp (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At this time no.
 * Some sources (I think)
 * https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/995656?c=people
 * http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82028060/
 * (this may be the only RS so far) https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/397518
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q8MHKQrFeEEC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=Harry+Holbert+Turney-High&source=bl&ots=jdZOCG-b9A&sig=61DJzZZrGUwD25NzcckgtRJTPVY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij44uty7TaAhUJKsAKHU0YDyQ4KBDoAQhOMAg#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Holbert%20Turney-High&f=false (not sure if this is RS< it is a book but know nothing about it)
 * This might get you started.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve article: Dennis Curry
Hi Slatersteven, thanks for your comment (I had just made a start with the article and knew there was more to do). I think you will find the article sufficiently improved and I have removed the tag RE additional sources needed. I trust you will now agree with me regarding the notability of the subject based on the additional information and references now included. Cheers - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs a bit of work with style and such forth, but yep I think there are enough sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, further improvement now carried out and I am now happy to leave it as a reasonably finished article for others to improve as they see fit. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Hello Slatersteven. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Keshav kumar. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I did a search and found nothing (except for an article we already have).Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And you have now marked it up for just the same thing I did, so I am a bit mystifyied.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no need to remove the tag you placed; the notice was just for future reference. I have restored the tag as it has been over 10 minutes and the article is still empty, making an A1 flag valid. Since the search you ran found nothing it would most likely be speedily deletable under A7 even if the page creator did add content. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)